Re: Q about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- From: Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:09:57 -0700
In article <gaht6f$gv6$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Paul J Gans <gans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ymir <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've a question which I'm directing to those on this forum who are more
familiar with the history of creationism and creationist arguments than
I am.
The claim that evolution violates second law of thermodynamics is one
which seems to be regurgitated on this forum on a semi-weekly basis, but
I'm curious to know if anyone here know who first put forward this
alleged objection and when it was first proposed.
In particular, I'm curious as to whether this objection was ever raised
prior to 1943, or whether it is a more recent argument.
Any pointers would be appreciated.
I have no idea when it first came up. It is based on the idea
that (1) entropy must *always* increase and that (2) entropy
and "disorder" are always directly related.
The first is wrong in general. It is only true in a totally
isolated system and we don't live in a totally isolated system.
The second is also incorrect. It came about because of the
simple treatment of systems having particles that don't
interact with each other, AKA an ideal gas.
I have a question about that. The ideal gas I learned about in high
school and freshman college chemistry is different from what you
describe: the particles *do* interact with one another. That's how the
Ideal Gas Law happens: the particles bounce off each other, and more as
you make the volume smaller. So are you sure about that property of an
ideal gas?
In that case
in an isolated system the more ways there are for placing
the particles in their container, the greater the entropy.
That part (the important part, really) is still true. Roger Penrose
describes it well in "The Road to Reality", in the chapter on
thermodynamics.
In real systems with real interactions, that isn't
necessarily true. Examples known to everybody include
the spontaneous formation of (low entropy) snow flakes
from (high entropy) water vapor.
And water isn't an "ideal gas" because the particles are polar and they
like to touch each other in interesting ways.
There is another branch of this argument that deals
with the notion that "information" cna't spontaneously
increase. That's a more complex argument but again is
clearly wrong.
I've yet to see a good definition of "information".
Again, I have no idea where the notion that life disobeys
the second law came from.
Probably from a simplistic (mis)understanding and a desire to show in
scientific terms that evolution isn't scientific.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Q about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- From: Paul J Gans
- Re: Q about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- References:
- Q about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- From: Ymir
- Re: Q about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- From: Paul J Gans
- Q about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- Prev by Date: Re: Q about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- Next by Date: Re: peer review process
- Previous by thread: Re: Q about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- Next by thread: Re: Q about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading